From: okaya@codeaurora.org
To: Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
Cc: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, timur@codeaurora.org,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: Acknowledge completion queue on each iteration
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 19:07:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <79413407294645f0e1252112c3435a29@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170717225615.GB1496@localhost.localdomain>
On 2017-07-17 18:56, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 06:46:11PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> On 7/17/2017 6:45 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 06:36:23PM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>> >> Code is moving the completion queue doorbell after processing all completed
>> >> events and sending callbacks to the block layer on each iteration.
>> >>
>> >> This is causing a performance drop when a lot of jobs are queued towards
>> >> the HW. Move the completion queue doorbell on each loop instead and allow new
>> >> jobs to be queued by the HW.
>> >
>> > That doesn't make sense. Aggregating doorbell writes should be much more
>> > efficient for high depth workloads.
>> >
>>
>> Problem is that code is throttling the HW as HW cannot queue more
>> completions until
>> SW get a chance to clear it.
>>
>> As an example:
>>
>> for each in N
>> (
>> blk_layer()
>> )
>> ring door bell
>>
>> HW cannot queue new job until N x blk_layer operations are processed
>> and queue
>> element ownership is passed to the HW after the loop. HW is just
>> sitting idle
>> there if no queue entries are available.
>
> If no completion queue entries are available, then there can't possibly
> be any submission queue entries for the HW to work on either.
Maybe, I need to understand the design better. I was curious why
completion and submission queues were protected by a single lock causing
lock contention.
I was treating each queue independently. I have seen slightly better
performance by an early doorbell. That was my explanation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-17 23:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-17 22:36 [PATCH] nvme: Acknowledge completion queue on each iteration Sinan Kaya
2017-07-17 22:45 ` Keith Busch
2017-07-17 22:46 ` Sinan Kaya
2017-07-17 22:56 ` Keith Busch
2017-07-17 23:07 ` okaya [this message]
2017-07-18 14:36 ` Keith Busch
2017-07-18 18:52 ` Sinan Kaya
2017-07-18 21:26 ` Keith Busch
2017-07-19 9:20 ` Sagi Grimberg
2017-07-19 10:37 ` Sinan Kaya
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=79413407294645f0e1252112c3435a29@codeaurora.org \
--to=okaya@codeaurora.org \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=timur@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox